Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

witness to their hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel

and so on; 7) her behavior towards us and Metelnitsky family was so incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or

to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc. 15)A "yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is absolutely

impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc.

Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper

to my first lawyer's translator, Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own

inventions and sentences which sounded like provocation. I demanded a translation back to Russian from her, and she did it. She wrote it

by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent me

from complaining. I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1, 2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder sabotaged the translations of

newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people

"to do me a favor" (I think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded the most important paragraphs in

her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also

sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which I prepared to support my claim. She told us that she has

translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew - but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert

note we gave to him: Then no documents were translated. 2-C,ect. 4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological

warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular

phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These

phrases were taken from articles, which I wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles, which I hadn't presented to

Mrs.Broder or to my lawyer when she was doing the translation of my refugee claim. The members of the immigration board have exploited

these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it might not happened occasionally.2-E, etc. 6) There is a visible

connection between the immigration officer - and information, which might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This

gentlemen acted once as an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article

was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine)

against me. This article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as a

government's agent I told him some things which I never told to any other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of

family Metelnitzky these things were used by the immigration officer (against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a

contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against

me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the

immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of

the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a

Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and - may be legal

rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal

translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she

sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration

officer's tactics in that issue.

CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or

a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's

and mine) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human

rights violations in Israel, which not concerns Arabs, can be calmed down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear

that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their

words, their behavior - everything - was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after

getting a status in Canada. Before that we don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the

rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for

the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and

that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation

back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt

about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ...

we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but

a brutal act of a vengeance.

SUPPLEMENTS:

1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION

HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN

GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4

DOCUMENT 3

TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

From Lev GUNIN

Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be

- even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native

republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was

deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in

Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely

persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a

dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no

other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral

loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy

against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a

foreign state.

We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and

elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society

were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly

expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting.

Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her

partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her

reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main

points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept

them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions.

She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any

interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a

situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic

and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused

to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document

herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to

what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ

from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the

same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what

is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52%

of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her

motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric

and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for

explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at

all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards

our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just